R v Waters - [1999] NSWSC 893

CITATION: R v Waters [1999] NSWSC 893

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 7000/97

HEARING DATE(S): 10/9/99, 19/9/99, 27/8/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 August 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Ronald Lewis WATERS

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

COUNSEL : M Marien - Crown
M McClintock - Ronald Lewis Waters

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Crown
T A Murphy - Ronald Lewis Waters

CATCHWORDS: Sentence; pleas of guilty to two charges of accessory after the fact of murder

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: R v Farroukh, unreported NSW CCA 29 March 1996
R v Tan Do, unreported, NSW CCA 7 May 1997 R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517

DECISION: Ronald Lewis Waters - convicted; on each count sentenced to penal servitude to be served concurrently by way of periodic detention for a period of eighteen months.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL
SIMPSON J
Friday 27 August 1999
7000/97

REGINA v Ronald Lewis WATERS

SENTENCE
HER HONOUR :

1    The prisoner Ronald Lewis Waters appears for sentence following his pleas of guilty to two charges alleging that he was an accessory after the fact of murder.
2    On 14 February 1994, at Gladesville in Sydney, Lindsey Rose murdered Kerrie Pang and Fatma Ozonals. He pleaded guilty to two charges of murder on 18 June 1998. He claimed that he murdered Kerrie Pang at the behest of her de facto husband, Mark Lewis, for which Rose was to be paid the sum of $20,000. He murdered Ms Ozonals because she appeared unexpectedly at the scene when he was in the process of discharging his contract with Lewis.
3    Lewis has also been charged with murder. A trial is fixed for hearing in October this year. In the facts I am about to recite Lewis’s participation and role is accepted, for the purposes of the present proceedings only, as having been established. The following findings of fact, so far as they involve Lewis, I make for the purpose of this sentencing exercise and not otherwise. As far as Lewis is concerned, his guilt remains to be determined by the appropriate tribunal of fact at trial.
4    The facts are drawn principally from information provided by the prisoner to police, many months after the events described.
5    Sometime before 14 February 1994 Rose asked the prisoner to accompany him to the address at Gladesville where Ms Pang conducted a massage parlour and Ms Ozonals was an employee, and present himself at the door while Rose remained out of sight. Rose’s purpose in involving the prisoner was to enable himself to gain entry to the premises, believing that the occupants would recognise him and deny him admission. He offered to pay the prisoner the sum of $500 to perform this function.
6    Accordingly, while Rose remained out of sight nearby the prisoner approached and knocked on the door. Ms Ozonals opened the door and Rose pushed past the prisoner, produced a gun he…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Waters

Details

AGLC: R v Waters [1999] NSWSC 893
Case: [1999] NSWSC 893
Decision Date: 27 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Waters involved the defendant, Waters, who pleaded guilty to two charges of accessory after the fact of murder. The dispute arose from a series of events that culminated in the death of a person, where Waters was alleged to have assisted others in evading lawful apprehension after the murder took place. The matter was brought before the court for sentencing, following Waters' guilty pleas.

The central legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate sentences for Waters’ guilty pleas and the application of any relevant legal principles to determine the sentence. The court needed to consider the principles of sentencing, the nature and circumstances of Waters' involvement as an accessory, and the relevant statutory provisions governing such offences.

The court examined the nature and extent of Waters' involvement in assisting the perpetrators of the murder to avoid arrest. It considered the principles of justice and proportionality in sentencing, as well as the need to deter and rehabilitate the offender. The court ultimately determined that Waters' role, while significant, was secondary to the primary perpetrators. It imposed a sentence that reflected both the gravity of the crime and the mitigating factors of Waters' cooperation with authorities and remorse shown. The sentence was structured to ensure it served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court ordered Waters to serve a specific term of imprisonment, taking into account the need for justice and the overall circumstances of the case. The final orders included the imposition of a custodial sentence, along with any additional conditions deemed appropriate by the court.

Orders